Two requests: Byzantines and Andalusi

Since I am not yet experienced enough to do so, I would like to ask the lovely folks here to hypothesize a scenario for me. I sometimes like to employ a fun rule in games like EU4 that I like to call "Law of Conservation of Religions" which essentially means that whatever allohistorical gains one religion makes, it has to lose somewhere else. I don't necessarily employ this all the time, but it is a fun concept I like to tout, such as when having large swathes of India fall to Islam, I have Hindus colonize certain territories, or when christians convert animists in Africa I make an african animist empire very powerful.

There is a scenario that I have always liked to see written out in detail, rather than merely played out on screen: Namely, what would happen if the Byzantines reconquered and held the Balkans and Anatolia, while the emirate of Gharnatah reconquers and holds the Iberian Peninsula? How different would the modern day be.

Now, I am not so much interested in how this could happen, but rather what happens after it already takes hold. I assume the point of divergence could be somewhere in the fifteenth century.

Thoughts?
 
Gharnatah? Any Andalusi state that's a taifa would be VERY difficult to re conquer Al-Andalus, your best bets are either the Ummayads (possible by avoiding Almanzor ' cluster fuck succession crisis) or the Almoravids/Almohads.

Obviously, these are two very different Andalusi cultures, an Ummayad Al Andalus would be more of a melting pot, accepting of Christian and Jewish accepts of Hispanian culture, with Cordoba most likely being the biggest and most advanced Islamic city following the sack of Baghdad (if it happens).

The Berber empires would be much more religiously and culturally conservative, and most likely wary of Mozarabic Christians and Jews. However they would be much more interested in conquest due to their zeal and I could see them launching a discovery of the new world.
 
Your best bet are the Umayyads, they were more self-sufficient than the Moroccan dynasties that needed to cross Gibraltar every time.

Al-Andalus surviving is going to be hard nevertheless, was much as the place is called a place of freedom and tolerance, there was much ethno-religious strife unlike the Asturian kingdoms.

For the Byzzies, I think it is the best after Manzikert, that showed how bad the corruption and betrayal is damaging, so either the Komnenoi never falls, or (briefly discussed in an earlier thread) HRE Henry VI survive a bit longer to place his brother Philip as Basileos.
 
The Byzantines had a depressing tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. From Alexios IV diverting the Crusaders to their mismanaging (to some extent) of Latin relations to the morbidly hilarious agonizing incompetence of the Angeloi to the Civil War of 1341-47... it's not impossible to keep them around in some form, but it takes an effort. Even before 1204 the Empire was fraying at the edges- Trebizond and Cyprus broke away, Bulgaria was already in revolt, the Empire has sold out its trade to the Italian city states, and the Mongols are coming in a few decades...​
If you kept the Komnenoi going for a few decades beyond OTL I think they'd have a fair chance of seizing most of Anatolia. Combined with a more successful 3rd and 4th Crusade (say Frederick II makes it to Jerusalem, keeping Richard and Philip from bickering and adding his sizeable army) utterly smashes the Ayyubids, letting the 4th roll into Egypt. Egypt is a lot richer and more secure than Palestine- meaning more chance to attract settlers to the rich Nile and less chance of invasion- and it doesn't have the religious connotations of Jerusalem. Plus Egypt itself has a long history of foreign conquerors, it's the India of the Middle East- the Abassids which Saladin supplanted were Shia muslims ruling over a slim Sunni majority with strong (20% or greater is what I usually see) Coptic Christian minority- and with the undoubtedly high influence of the Italian republics I think the Egyptian kingdom can last, barring the Mongols.​
By 1220 or so you could have all western Anatolia under Rome together with Bulgaria (possible to crush/avert the revolt?) staying under the Purple, and Palestine and Egypt a scattered mix of crusader states and emirates... the Mongols are still coming, though, not sure how the ERE would handle them. Probably a tribute and efforts to deflect them north or south.​
As for Al-Andalus... that's hard, especially with a (likely) more successful Crusader system. If Egypt falls- to Mongols or Crusaders- you likely see North Africa invaded and re-Christianized. Sicily IIRC had some colonies in Libya and Tunis a few years before this, they could well try again especially if the 'Staufen inheritance happens and the king wants to emulate Redbeard... this creates Problems for Spain.​
I think you'd need to go back to the Ummayads, as the ethnic and political tensions between the Berbers and the Andalusians seems too unstable. OTOH the Berbers give a religious and military zeal that could be useful in the long run to carve out an Andalusian state.​
 
Well, this idea is already on the AH.com wiki as a noted cliche we employ.

AH.com Wiki said:
Another common example is that if the Byzantine Empire survives (so Anatolia is Christian) then Muslim Spain (Al-Andalus) will also survive so Islam gets compensated.

It's something that already appears unintentionally in many TLs, so I don't think we need to consciously steer towards it. If anything, the opposite should be true: if a religion is weakened, rather than expand it's more likely that it will be far less successful elsewhere. A surviving Byzantine Empire means that Crusader States can be more easily kept alive and the Mediterranean can remain a more Christian Lake. The Muslims are likely pushed out of Spain faster, and Christians are more committed to striking into the Levant and North Africa as well due to the Crusading Spirit remaining strong.
 
The key to getting Gharnatah to survive in euIV, who's historical efficacy I am not sure of, is to ally itself with enemies of Castille and Aragon while also trying to conquer small Mediterranean states or take plunder from them. It also helps immensely if more of the Spanish rulers turns out to be incompetent or insane. As for Byzantium . . . Is there any exogreek culture that can establish a dynasty? This is definitely not a video game thing, I'm just wondering if somehow, some Greek warlord from outside the empire (thus raised with a different culture) could bring some variety to the office, possibly after a diverged Menzikurt as suggested.

This is all I was able to immediately think up suggestions for. I'm still rereading the initial posts.

I want to make something clear though: I am not necessarily concerned with how outlandish a divergence it is, so long as it is possible within the confines of that history. Even if multiple mildly possible divergences have to occur for each event to work, I'd rather it happened.
 
The key to getting Gharnatah to survive in euIV, who's historical efficacy I am not sure of, is to ally itself with enemies of Castille and Aragon while also trying to conquer small Mediterranean states or take plunder from them. It also helps immensely if more of the Spanish rulers turns out to be incompetent or insane. As for Byzantium . . . Is there any exogreek culture that can establish a dynasty? This is definitely not a video game thing, I'm just wondering if somehow, some Greek warlord from outside the empire (thus raised with a different culture) could bring some variety to the office, possibly after a diverged Menzikurt as suggested.

This is all I was able to immediately think up suggestions for. I'm still rereading the initial posts.

I want to make something clear though: I am not necessarily concerned with how outlandish a divergence it is, so long as it is possible within the confines of that history. Even if multiple mildly possible divergences have to occur for each event to work, I'd rather it happened.

Things on euIV should not be taken as what is plausible.
 
Now, since everyone is so concerned with it- How does the House of Ibn Nasr regain spain, and how do the Byzantines stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Actually, barring the need for Ibn Nasr, what if in the sixteenth century Ahmad Al'Mansur launches his planned "anteconquista" and succeeds. Again, not assessing likelihood of success, the successful divergence is implied.
 
Now, since everyone is so concerned with it- How does the House of Ibn Nasr regain spain, and how do the Byzantines stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Actually, barring the need for Ibn Nasr, what if in the sixteenth century Ahmad Al'Mansur launches his planned "anteconquista" and succeeds. Again, not assessing likelihood of success, the successful divergence is implied.

Post-Granada Moorish revivals, while often interesting, are a lost cause, especially in a situation where you want the byzantines to survive too. The only hope the post-1942 moors could carve out a piece of Iberia would be as a client state of a very Mediterranean minded Ottoman Empire (which would cancel out the existence of the Byzantines).
As many have said, the best hope for a surviving Al-Andalus is the Ummayads or the Berber Empires. Both of these systems had their problems but they could be solved given the right PoD, but a taifa state or a Post-Granada revival is just not plausible.
 
Post-Granada Moorish revivals, while often interesting, are a lost cause, especially in a situation where you want the byzantines to survive too. The only hope the post-1942 moors could carve out a piece of Iberia would be as a client state of a very Mediterranean minded Ottoman Empire (which would cancel out the existence of the Byzantines).
As many have said, the best hope for a surviving Al-Andalus is the Ummayads or the Berber Empires. Both of these systems had their problems but they could be solved given the right PoD, but a taifa state or a Post-Granada revival is just not plausible.

Alright, never mind Al'Mansur, but there must be some kind of series of events that can give Garnata a small window of opportunity?
 
Alright, never mind Al'Mansur, but there must be some kind of series of events that can give Garnata a small window of opportunity?

The Marinids attempted to reinvade Al-Andalus in support of the Nasrids, but were defeated early by the Castilians. They could have won this conflict, as I am pretty sure that they had more soldiers and ships compared to Castille.
 
How different would the modern day be.

Turkey would be a member of the European Union. Spain would not. That changes the frontiers of what's considered 'Europe' quite significantly. What about the New World? Most of the territory there ended up under Spain, but in this alternative timeline, perhaps it doesn't get discovered at all - or if it does, it happens later. The effects on the Americas are huge and unpredictable. Perhaps the Americas would be colonised by Muslim Arabs. Who knows what the effect would be. The country borders in north and south would be completely different, and the culture would be too. The USA as we know it would almost certainly not exist. This has huge knock-on effects for 20th century European history, and for the rest of the globe as well.

All in all, the world would be unrecognisable. The differences would be vast.
 
Alright, never mind Al'Mansur, but there must be some kind of series of events that can give Garnata a small window of opportunity?

Al-Mansur was definitely a great Moroccan leader, and his alliances with England with did give him a level of power against the Spanish. In fact, the way he united post-Marinid Maghreb so successfully I'd compare him to a 16th century Bismarck, and it is plausible that he could have launched a land invasion of Spain and held territory up to Sevilla.

However, at this point, Spain had been thoroughly inquisition'd, and Catholic fundementalism was in full fervour. This meant that there would be very few conversion (or reversions) to Islam amongst the Iberians, and it also means that Spain, the Habsburgs and the rest of the Holy League will not accept Islamic territory in Iberia. So while Al-Mansur could theoretically launch a successful invasion of Spain, any gains would be lost within a generation and there would be little to no return to Andalusi/Moorish culture.
 
the exact thing you are looking for is the interregrnum mod for good old eu2 where nasrids consolidate andalusia and byz survives, along with both france and england fracturing. it's basically an underdog-wank (including bretons, welsh, burgundy, kingdom of jerusalem, occitania, hohenstafuen sicily, savoy, bavaria, kalmar union, teutonic order getting their wanks ina mid 1400 setting. they had a pretty good backstory for everything too. just can't find the damn thing in the new paradox forums :(
 
the exact thing you are looking for is the interregrnum mod for good old eu2 where nasrids consolidate andalusia and byz survives, along with both france and england fracturing. it's basically an underdog-wank (including bretons, welsh, burgundy, kingdom of jerusalem, occitania, hohenstafuen sicily, savoy, bavaria, kalmar union, teutonic order getting their wanks ina mid 1400 setting. they had a pretty good backstory for everything too. just can't find the damn thing in the new paradox forums :(

That backstory might be a good place to start!
 
Al-Mansur was definitely a great Moroccan leader, and his alliances with England with did give him a level of power against the Spanish. In fact, the way he united post-Marinid Maghreb so successfully I'd compare him to a 16th century Bismarck, and it is plausible that he could have launched a land invasion of Spain and held territory up to Sevilla.

However, at this point, Spain had been thoroughly inquisition'd, and Catholic fundementalism was in full fervour. This meant that there would be very few conversion (or reversions) to Islam amongst the Iberians, and it also means that Spain, the Habsburgs and the rest of the Holy League will not accept Islamic territory in Iberia. So while Al-Mansur could theoretically launch a successful invasion of Spain, any gains would be lost within a generation and there would be little to no return to Andalusi/Moorish culture.

Alright, so for one, I have actually read (and been told angrily, now that I recall) that many accounts of the Spanish Inquisition were exaggerated by Spain's powerful enemies. Barring that, maybe yet another point of divergence can help us with the super Catholics (also, take in mind that up until the seventeenth century, many andalusians were still involved in crypto-islamic practices, so honestly there is a good chance that many of them at this point are "underground". Take in further mind that the Moors and Ladinos banished from Spain will immediately start to return after Al'Mansur consolidates his gains).

Alright, so the Protestant Reformation began in 1517 and ended in 1648, can we play off of that somehow to implant possible sympathetic religious sentiments with christian groups- if not reformist catholics than protestants or others, which might be able to spread and aid Al'Mansur's cause? Maybe even improve the opinion of Islam as a whole in the eyes of Europe?

Intellectual contagions, people! I can't think of a specific one, I would have to read about christian philosophies during the period and compare them to what I know about late sixteenth century Moroccan-supported schools of Islam.
 
Top